Large Terrorist attack in Paris

[Mike80]

Disagree VG. In an age of international air travel, eventually ISIS is going to launch an attack here. And no one is going to prevent people from traveling to the United States. And logically, ISIS almost certainly already has sleeper agents in country just waiting. It's too easy to do...

We're going to be involved in the middle east for the long term....oil or no oil. Terrorist groups like ISIS don't give a flip about oil or us being involved in that region (you did agree with scarletmike after all)....they had all of civilization. No amount of patrolling southern borders is going to matter when you're dealing with a group that has the patience and capabilities of a group like ISIS. This attack last night wasn't just some randoms who got together on the internet.

This was planned, coordinated, bankrolled, supplied and executed by a group that took the time to do it. You can put your head in the sand and think total disengagement will work, but I'm here to tell you it won't, not that it is truly in the realm of possibilities anyway....

 

[Steve19]

Maybe. So what? The British probably would have much preferred not to fight that war. Sometimes the enemy is at war with you, whether you like it not. It's hard to imagine someone wanting to fight less than Obama has already. And like Al Quaeda before them, ISIS isn't seeking Independence. Their revolution is to bring about the end of days. Death cults man.

My point is that conventional military options will not be effective. Line up your best troops, bomb the Middle East into oblivion...nothing sustainable will be produced. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. War has changed forever.

 

[BoxCar_Willie]

Obama understands that.

He's so on point with every other policy and belief. He probably developed a deep philosophical understanding of military history and tactics as well.

I can't imagine under any circumstances ever that is is believable.

 

[Mike80]

My point is that conventional military options will not be effective. Line up your best troops, bomb the Middle East into oblivion...nothing sustainable will be produced. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. War has changed forever.

Militarily, we've won all 3 of those conflicts....just sayin...

We lost Vietnam strategically because our political class would not see the war through to its conclusion.

We had won Iraq, the troop surge worked, but we pulled the military out too soon.

Afghanistan has an international coalition much like what needs to form to deal with ISIS.

 

[BIATCHabutuka]

By the time Europe had been torn down at the end of World War 2, you had been up to nearly 1200 years of almost constant warfare. Why did Europe stabilize? Because the allies stuck around and ensured an enduring civilization was created from what was left. Sure the Cold War was a driving factor, but while the USSR failed, they did stabilize Eastern Europe.

With the Middle East, something similar will have to happen and it's going to take decades. That's if our political leaders are willing to do it, which I seriously doubt. After all, there's elections to be won. The French won't stop, neither will the Russians. Everyone agrees the attacks are abhorrent to the absolute maximum, but unless a true coalition that is willing to stick around for 30-40 years forms (i.e. NATO, the Warsaw Pact, etc), we'll be right back to where we are now in 10-15 years.

I seriously don't see any other way. We can't wait them out, they'll just get stronger. We can't "contain" them, and airstrikes are a crappy way to enforce containment. This is where the UN needs to grow a pair and be useful.

Take this as a compliment from a non interventionist, but that is the best case for intervention I have heard possibly ever. If I did intervene though, I'd go whole hog and try to literally kill them all, that or they become a vassal state / territory similar to the Virgin Islands or Guam. Total submission or death, no middle ground.


As a hard core non interventionist, I'm not sure I care if the Mid East is stablized or not. I'm comfortable playing whack a mole with overwhelming power and just isolating the barbarians in their own safe space.


Edit: agree they will organize and come here eventually and this France thing wasn't some bozos on the internet. Still, I prefer to fight on the home court if I need to fight anyway so bring it the fuck on. If we are going to fight, let's fight on familiar turf and with out the supply lines.

 

[OSUK]

What some of you need to go do is buy a ticket to some Muslim country. Get your passport, go live there for 6 months minimum.

I hate to say this but there are a lot of opinions in this thread. But not a lot of truly educated opinions. Americans cannot relate whatsoever to people in the middle east and their problems. There is that much of a difference between us (Europe included) and the rest of the world. You are so spoiled and have no idea. Spoiled with an education, safety, a life of a thousand years of knowledge, art, and free thought.

It's naturally western to believe that people all over the world have similar sensibilities. It just makes sense. I'm not insulting anyone. Just pointing out that you are dealing with an alien culture and people.

I think when a certain culture and religion produces people who fly planes into buildings, blow people up, and target women, children, and innocent men - and my family and I are on their list as a targets - that becomes the only essential information about them. I may be intellectually curious about the hows and the whys of their ideology, but more understanding of that would make no practical difference. In other words, it does me no good for my brain to understand them well as they are beheading me. Some things are nuanced. Self-preservation and maintenance of freedom in the face of this particular threat is not - at least in my mind. No matter how much gray a deeper understanding would provide me, that black and white truth of what their intent is remains.

 

[Steve19]

Mandela responded to Islamic fundamentalism by engaging in dialogue with the spectrum of Islamic thought leaders, especially moderates, and encouraging interfaith organizations and community groups. Positive engagement allowed grievances to be aired and moderate views to become more influential.

A major goal of the protagonists of terrorists is to draw the West into military expenditures that will cause misery among their poor and increasing numbers willing to listen to their hateful message.

My concern is that we know from thousands of studies on social identity theory (also social categorization), much of it by Marilynn Brewer at Ohio State, that people identifying with social outgroups are more likely to engage in social conflict behavior in order to defend their group identity. That is, they become more entrenched in their identity and views and take steps to defend it when they feel unable or unwilling to move to another group.

The non-stop demonization of Muslims, the ignorant stereotyping of them all as terrorists, the categorization of the war against ISIL as a religious war and America as a Christian nation...these images playing across TVs in the Middle East every day...are not helpful in advancing peace and the interests of everyone. In fact, it promotes group identity and a fertile field for converts.

I am not saying that ISIL does not need to be isolated from their finances and military resources. I am saying that sending even a million troops there as an occupying force will not solve this problem in a sustainable way. Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons will not solve this problem. This is a much bigger problem requiring an equally radically-decentralized response across world governments.

 

[AKAK]

My point is that conventional military options will not be effective. Line up your best troops, bomb the Middle East into oblivion...nothing sustainable will be produced. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. War has changed forever.

Oh. I'm all for being much more creative. I'm also in favor of being a little more honest about the problem. "ISIS is contained?" Yeah not so much. Retrenchment is not the answer. The war in Iraq was won. The victory needed to be consolidated. But expediency required the force that provided that stability be removed. Playing nice in Afghanistan not going all that great. The failed states are piling up. Libya... Yemen.. Syria. It's them. Not us.

 

[Saw31]

Maybe. So what? The British probably would have much preferred not to fight that war. Sometimes the enemy is at war with you, whether you like it not. It's hard to imagine someone wanting to fight less than Obama has already. And like Al Quaeda before them, ISIS isn't seeking Independence. Their revolution is to bring about the end of days. Death cults man.

This. This is what needs to be understood. This is not Al Qaeda. Bin Laden attacked us here to lure us to Afghanistan thinking it would turn out the way the Soviet/Afghan war turned out. He miscalculated.

Again. This is not Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

This particular enemy is not fighting for a future, they are fighting to bring about Judgement Day. This is Jim Jones with millions of followers from around the world, including from Western Countries. It is exactly a death cult. That's all the deeper you need to dig into this ideology to understand no one on earth will be safe if they are around.

We need to kill them and just as importantly, we have to aggressively dry up their money. Guns and ammo and explosives and training cost money. If its illegal to hack into, and disrupt the banking and monetary systems that feed the machine, we need to change those laws and arrest/kill those who provide those services. War with a capital W. Every means at our disposal. Anyone who thinks this won't happen here, well, you are living in a safe space fantasy. Its already here.

Article that I think tells the right story.

 

[Mike80]

Mandela responded to Islamic fundamentalism by engaging in dialogue with the spectrum of Islamic thought leaders, especially moderates,

I stopped there. There are no moderates in ISIS. The rest was a meaningless wall of text if you think for one second there's a moderating factor in ISIS.

 

[AKAK]

My concern is that we know from thousands of studies on social identity theory (also social categorization), much of it by Marilynn Brewer at Ohio State, that people identifying with social outgroups are more likely to engage in social conflict behavior in order to defend their group identity. That is, they become more entrenched in their identity and views and take steps to defend it when they feel unable or unwilling to move to another group.

The non-stop demonization of Muslims, the ignorant stereotyping of them all as terrorists, the categorization of the war against ISIL as a religious war and America as a Christian nation...these images playing across TVs in the Middle East every day...are not helpful in advancing peace and the interests of everyone. In fact, it promotes group identity and a fertile field for converts

See. I think this is the view that's dangerous. And I think it's what boxcar Willie is trying to get at. They're gonna get the converts either way. Theyre not just at war with Christians. Or against them. They are at war FOR their view of Sunni Islam. That's a them problem.

 

[Buckeneye]

I stopped there. There are no moderates in ISIS. The rest was a meaningless wall of text if you think for one second there's a moderating factor in ISIS.

Then that leaves only one true solution.

You would have to kill every single member of ISIS, combatant affiliation or not. Every single person, man, woman and child, that lives under their thumb.

I even hesitate to use the word 'solution'.

 

[Mike80]

Then that leaves only one true solution.

You would have to kill every single member of ISIS, combatant affiliation or not. Every single person, man, woman and child, that lives under their thumb.

I even hesitate to use the word 'solution'.

It won't be easy, but you take out those attacking you. We won't be killing children and ISIS uses women for their bodies, not for military actions.

This is truly a death cult. It sucks, but someone is going to have to do it or more attacks like Paris will happen, and it's only a matter of time until it happens over here.

 

[BIATCHabutuka]

Now I am wrong often so feel free to correct me here, but most Islamic terrorists are Sunni right?

Yet we are friends with Sunni like the Saudis right?

And we hate their enemies the Shia, namely the Iranians, who hate the terrorists that hate us (though they like the terrorists that hate Israel).


Why don't we just switch sides to the Shia side and guarantee Israel's safety in a switch.

Blame the House of Saud for 9/11.

Seize all Saudi assets.

Seize Saudi land.

Pump Saudi oil and take the cash. Ironically we would be selling a hard asset oil in exchange for dollar bills we print out of thin air, but ignore that money changer behind the curtain with invisible clothes. . . . .

 

[Steve19]

I stopped there. There are no moderates in ISIS. The rest was a meaningless wall of text if you think for one second there's a moderating factor in ISIS.

There were no moderates in PAGAD either, Mike. You may forget that bin Laden congratulates them in his first video message to the West. Over two years, we had more than one bomb a week in Cape Town, most of which were small but a few big ones like the Planet Hollywood bombings. In fairness, PAGAD denied in involvement in most of the bombings, but few believed them. They set out to take out drug kingpins, prostitution, and Western influences in their communities.

Mandela recognized the positive influences of Islam. MOderate Muslim voices spoke out and he walked side-by-side with them in public marches through their communities.

That's why, when my Dad went into a coma on 9/11 died later that day, it was Muslim friends who reached out to help.

I experience Muslims every day and I firmly believe that the only way forward is to plan the end game much better than the US has done so far.